defensive. in fact, there are striking similarities between iran and north korea, but one striking difference is the degree of ambition. you have described of regime in north korea that seems to be, the number one goal seems to be in nature that buying scotch is available to the elite. iran has sought to influence affairs around the world, bomb the jewish committee center. so iran, both by actions and rhetoric, is intent on accomplishing, on affecting things are outside its borders in ways that we would find unacceptable.

going to ask our witnesses a question, i will preview for a second, and that is just in terms of billions of dollars, i want to break down north korea's sources of foreign capital or funds into the following categories. their military and nuclear exports, there a list of nonlethal exports, their illicit activities. and that i would include goods that are listed except for the fact that they are mislabeled and sold as made in some other country but actually made in north korea, or the caisson economic zone. the subsidies that they receive from china, including reduced price on oil. and then finally aid, which i realize it's not completely under the control of the north korean government. but before you ask for that question, i would say that it's

going to be very hard to enforce this regime to change its behavior in return for, because, and to give up its nuclear weapons because among other things that's what gadhafi did. the sense of gadhafi's past being visited him notwithstanding his promise communism is change in behavior, he did not have nuclear weapons and is no longer with us. that's a good thing, except it is the extent it shows the north koreans that, what can happen. with that, why don't i hear from the witnesses. can you try to tell me, roughly in terms of billions of dollars, how that money shakes down? does anybody have an answer? dr. li? >> as you know, it's very hard

in numbers. there have been reports over the years that north korea makes several hundreds of millions of dollars in sales of weapons. >> so less than a billion but hundreds of million? >> less than a billion. the north korean economy is responding terms of per capita gdp. it's one of the lowest in the world. the only country in the asia-pacific that has a smaller economy in terms of per capital gdp is burma. it compares unfavorably with many countries of africa. it's a $40 billion economy. when north korea was exporting, say around the year 2000, only about half a billion dollars worth of goods, and this is seen after -- south korea gave north korea unconditionally cash and other things including food, worth hundreds of minutes of

dollars per year. and over the course of 10 years during the so-called sunshine policy years, south korea gave north korea unconditionally over $10 billion in aid. now, i don't want to say that was a necessary condition to prolonging the regime, to preserving the north korean regime. but it was a factor. that kind of unconditional nondiscriminating aid i do think is in the best interest of the international community. south korea still as a major joint economic venture with north korea, as you mentioned, a caisson and after complex. the total sum that north korea makes from that enterprise is perhaps about $20 million or so a year. not a huge sum. but as you race, there are questions of north korean made goods that are sold outside the korean peninsula. spent and how much do they get from china?

>> well, probably over a billion dollars worth of goods per year. which is a drop in the bucket for the chinese economy. >> so, i may -- the missile side of the ledger, north korea has made significant money from selling missile to them when they had missile launches, it's a marketing approach to telling everyone these things work and so forth. but for the first security initiative and things tightening up, the markets are not there for north korea so they're hurting with respect to missile sales. famous to me quite a bit of money with the alpha bar program that was selling missile, nuclear technology, five-megawatt reactors. so there's a bit of pressure, more than a bit of pressure on north korea with respect to foreign reserves and getting the capital necessary to sustain that element of lifestyle for

the elite in pyongyang. and i think on the china side i think things are tightening up on china. i don't think china -- i think china is looking at things very closely. so i think the kim jong-un government is looking at some significant financial problems. spee-1 very quickly. north korea has been aggressively exporting monetary nonmonetary goal. if you're trying to tighten up the financial affects against north korea, you need to look at these tradable precious metals as sanction the item. they are typically marked with the north korean emblem. when they're not, the gold can be tested precise as to where its origin emanates from. so you could create a verification compliance that could screen out the gold export which might be generating as much as a billion plus a year for north korea. our estimate 2005 north korea's illicit earnings on october $2,801,000,000,000, and

that was overtly -- i think it's increasing. >> thank you for the idea, dr. asher. that's a good one. we would go to mr. marino. >> thank you, chairman. good afternoon, gentlemen and thank you for being here. over here. first of all let me say that i personally did not consider a retired basketball player showing up at his own pr promotion in a wedding dress a series credible ambassador representing the united states. and secondly, as far as a terrorist threat of iran is concerned, the u.s. you can be sure will stand shoulder to shoulder with our israeli friends and whatever we have to do to protect israel and the world from the fanatics who control iran. now my question is, in looking at this from a degree of separation perspective and i know you've been asked what can we specifically do, i'm going to

ask basically the same question again, but from a different angle. can each of you address what countries and businesses within those countries do business directly or indirectly with north korea, ma knowing and, obviously, that china is at the top of that list and we do a great deal of business with china and they hold most of our outside that. it's complex. i know there's no single answer but can you elaborate more on the specifics about what we do with those individuals, those other countries and businesses? and just go down the line. >> fma, china as you said is key. i think, i mean, literally with respect to trade and investment, it's china the european union in the past has considerable interaction with north korea. i think that's diminished significantly given north korea

-- north korea's bad behavior. so my simple answer is china. and without china, in my view it was north korea economy just crumbles. >> dr. lee? >> we do know all specific north korean institutions that engage in proliferation and other illicit activities. there's a long list. executive order 13382, mentions 30 or so north korean entities, including individuals. and the most recent u.n. security council resolution, 2087, adopted in january, lists for north korean individuals by name. a couple of those are associate with north korea's so-called space program, science, technology. the other two are associated with a north korean company, a

commercial bank, which is a long history of engaging in illicit activities. there is also in the u.n. security council resolution 2087, a freeze on the assets owned by a north korean bank, eastern land bank. so the problem is not necessarily identifying sufficient number of targets, but implementing those targets. >> dr. asher, i'm going to expand a little bit. let's talk about the realities. what ramifications will the united states face in taking action against countries and businesses that are doing business or promoting north korea, whether that's through china or some other entity? what are we looking at? >> i mean, objectively goes on when we designated bank of asia in 2005 as the chinese by begin to act against both

proliferation and illicit activity. they quite decisively, they strangle lives as a part of ours for about a year and then once we remedied that action, and i thought absently no blowback of that against the broader relationship with china, that designation of the bank. in fact, the chinese were extremely scared that we're going to designate of the banks where we made them aware we had observed the exact same activity except a larger scale. the acting is a businesslike fashion, like the professor suggested. their pragmatism reigns supreme. they didn't threaten to sell off their treasury bond holdings or anything which is a pretty self-defeating actually. we got a responsible response from the chinese government. i believe that if we are to reimpose certain measures in a clear and consistent and transparent fashion, holding chinese entities and other foreign trading entities responsible for their complicit activities with north korea,

they would shun the north korean partners. >> thank you and i yield back my9 seconds. >> thank you. we go to lois frankel. >> thank you, mr. chair. and than thank you, pam, for yor discussion today. we've heard some quite horrifying, quite horrifying to hear some of the things you're talking about like human rights violations. illicit activities of counterfeit money, cigarettes, drugs that increase in nuclear capacity is disturbing assisting iran in its procurement of nuclear weapon. my question to each of you is though, what's the in game? what do we in the and do we want to accomplish? north korea's 21 million people within a strategic location. if we could cure these ills, what is it, what's the in game

we are looking for? >> our policy is a complete verify -- i think it's become unfortunate fantasy. we all wish that could be the case. i believe that we need to take a range of measures to try to actively undermine the north we nuclear program, which i'm not going to talk about in any detail but one can guess what those are. it begins with an aggressive counter proliferation, counter network operation initiative equivalent to the we had against the a.q. khan network that it would extend to any special measures which be taken to try to act with integrity of north korea's facilities as they threatened to be engaging producing proliferation great material. and are going to look at north koreans embassies and offices around the world and whether they should be allowed to have diplomatic sovereignty is engaged in commercial conduct, most specifically the sale of weapons of mass destruction, which is not something which is

necessarily about under the geneva convention conduct. >> the endgame in my view it is to encourage, take action, to facilitate the emergence of the single free korean state. and this is a long-term project obviously. this year again marks the 60th anniversary of the korean war, and i think the best way to honor those brave souls who answered the call to defend a country they never knew, a people they never met as eloquently inscribed in a plaque in the korean war veterans memorial is for pragmatic and prudent policymakers in washington, and soul, to come together, to lay the foundation for a genuine, a permanent peace in the korean peninsula, and to deliver the long-suffering north korean people from bondage.

spent i think the first step is to come back to september 2005 joint statement. we at kim jong-il commit to every kim jong-il in beijing committing to comprehensive the new position. tim johnson has never said he is how he is prepared to denuclearize or his prepared. kim jong-un needs to commit to that joint statement as his father did, at commit to denuclearization. a nuclear north korea given all the reason recent we discussed s morning with potential for proliferation is just come and what it means for the ntt, the whole regime, the nuclear proliferation regime and the nuclear arms race that would engender if they would retain those weapons, it's just not, it's not tolerable. and that should be and one would hope that's where the dprk is. that's the ultimate. or they need security

assurances, ultimately when they get their act together on a list of activities they can become a normal state. then with the two koreas, the unification issue because this is one korea, this is the korean peninsula and so forth. i think the first of has to be coming back to something they committed to in 2005, and they conveniently walk away from it saying now they are a nuclear weapon state and we're talking about, if you will, -- it's a denuclearization. >> thank you. mr. guerre, i yield back. >> thank you. we now go to mr. weber. >> i don't member which one of you it was that suggested maybe it was you, dr. lee, that we give the treasury investigative authority? can you restate, make that argument again? i want to follow that because we will have a question for you.

>> i think the united states should pass the bill that allows for the expansion of designation of prohibited activity. that is, additional action that would come under this new bill as prohibited. including actions further, furthering north korea's proliferation, illicit activities, import of luxury goods, cash transactions, falls cash smuggling basically, sales of lethal military equipment, small arms as well, and also actions that further perpetrate the continuation of crimes against humanity. also i would first -- urge congress to pass a new bill that gives treasury investigative powers. that requires the treasury department to investigate

suspicious actions, reports of suspicious activity. >> that's the question, but that's on the monetary part of it. that's not in any kind of violation of human rights, is that right? >> well, any activity that is linked to violations of human rights i would call for that as well, but focus, yes, is on illicit activity. >> through the treasury, art of those types of activities that you outlined already a part of what we watch pretty closely? >> -- aren't those types? >> yes, but making it a law bounding, requiring the treasury department to actually take action i think would make a difference. >> okay. that's my only question. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go now to ms. gabbard. >> thank you to our panel here for being here today.

i represent the second congressional district in hawaii, which as we have seen for the last couple of lunches, experts have testified that hawaii a low whistle of our northwestern states are within range within missile range of north korea. so this is an issue that's very real for us, not only as a state but also because of our military presence there and strategic location within our national defense. i'm wondering your view of what the current estimate is realistically of when north korea may have a warhead missile combination that could strike the united states, as well as your assessment of our missile defense and we can do to prevent this from occurring, or at least slowing down their progress? >> well, i believe they are quite a ways from having that capability, congresswoman. i was talking about miniaturization, miniaturizing

that nuclear weapon and making it a delivery system and having a delivery system be successful in reentry, bringing that warhead into target area. i think they are quite a difference -- distance from the. this launch in december was significant. it was put -- putting a satellite in orbit. it was quite a bit larger, more significant than the one previous to that in 2000. so they are making progress but i believe they are quite a ways. the testing has to be done. the science is that it doesn't mean they're not seeking the. obviously, they are seeking that. i think the distance is quite a ways. i think on missile defense, i think what our capabilities, i think they're very robust. we're not going to significant arsenal. we're talking about four to six weapons we are saying, and given the uranium enrichment program

we could add additional weapons to the. so w we're talking about a finie number of potential nuclear weapons, to be delivered again way down the road. i think we are well prepared. >> thanks. >> i replied to congresswoman frankel's question. the in game for their states and for south korea should be to seek the emergence of the united free open democratic korea with its government and seoul. north korea's and again -- in the game is also unification under its own initiative. that is the ongoing north korean revolution and it is stated explicitly. now, as hard for us as it may be to conceive, imagine north korea suffers against south korea, backs behind in every index of measuring state power except for military power. that is the ultimate objective of the north korean state.

and one key stepping stone in achieving that eventually unification is to evict the u.s. troops from south korea. and this is tied to north korea's nuclear and long range missile programs. that is, if north korea were able to demonstrate that it has achieved that capability to marry a nuclear warhead to an intercontinental ballistic missile, north korea's bargaining power would be enhanced tremendously. and in my view, the ultimate goal of the north korean regime by systematically pursuing such weapons development program is not necessarily to attack the united states. north korea is not suicidal. self-preservation is its ultimate objective, but to be able to negotiate vis-à-vis the united states from a position of strength on a host of matters, political matter, economic matters and specifically on the matter of the continued presence of u.s. troops in south korea,

that has played over the past six years the most important, the essential role in keeping the peace in the korean peninsula. we've had to factor peace in korea, unstable at times, but it's been the longest period of peace in the korean peninsula in and around the cumbria peninsula since the 19 century. and that is thanks to the continued presence of the u.s. troops. north korea's objective is to get those troops out. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would just, i grant your point, professionally. i would just interject one point, and that is, we do have a habit here though to consider as will on the part of the government of north korea, and that's a habit of proliferation and so far they have proliferated every other weapons program they have gotten a handle on. including to syria. so in this particular instance you have psychic activity which would indicate that yes, it's a much greater yield in terms of this explosion, and at the same

time it's a smaller warhead. so it must be getting closer in terms of that capability, of placing it on that icbm that they've already mastered. we go now to mr. rohrabacher who is the ranking member on europe, eurasia and emerging threats. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank you personally as well as thank chairwoman ros-lehtinen for the strong leadership that both of you have provided on this issue of korea. i remember many years ago when i first was elected and became a member of this committee, there was a debate as to what policies we should have come and the six-party talks and how much, and whether we're going to give north korea aid or not. can someone fill me in, we see here that south korea has given

north korea $10 billion in aid over the years, the data states has provided food and oil -- the united states has provided food and oil. how much we provided north korea in that type of assistance? anyone on the panel have a number? >> i could just put out, on the food, i think the u.s. is the greatest donor nation on humanitarian food aid for extended period of time for north korea. and on the fuel, heavy fuel oil pursuant to the agreed framewo framework, we provided significant amounts of heavy fuel oil -- >> i know the both of them are significant. does anyone have a number? are we talking billions of dollars worth of food and no? >> i think we are close to that. >> according to the congressional research service, a little over a billion spent in food and in oil? >> yes. >> so we have provided over

$1 billion of food and oil for korea over these last few years. let me just note that i remember that several members of congress, me included, were very vocally opposed to this policy, suggesting that it would be counterproductive and would be seen as a sign of weakness and actually would not bring about change in north korea. in fact, i think we have been proven correct in those aggressive oppositions to that policy. let me just say, you know, you at like idiots. it is are people who give, do favors for their enemies. and we act like idiots, you've got to be expected to be treated like an idiot by any. and that's what's going on here in korea. they have been playing as frankly ever since that we decided to start giving them money. in fact, south korea was willing to give them over $10 billion in

aid, and now we see that the regime is what? is declaring that the truce is no longer going to be in place? this is a slap in the face of the useful idiots all over the world that think you can buy off, totalitarian enemies by being friends with them. let me just suggest also, and this to my dear friend, and 11, who i will add is a vietnam veteran who is a heroic -- mr. faleomavaega, but i'm sorry, that i think coconuts make good teaneck a lot us but they make really bad policy. it seems to me that what we -- and one last thought before get to my question. and that is, thank god we have missile defense. over the years, the things we're fighting to make sure we don't give our enemies money which

they now have used to develop nuclear weapons. at the very least we have fought for a missile defense system which may provide us some security in the united states against missiles launched from north korea to southern california. so thank god that we overrode that opposition, missile defense, which is very strong in this congress. and, finally, i would just like to ask about china. do you folks, dr. lee, you tended not to sort of the buddhas, and i agree with you, regime change and one senior has to be the goal -- is in china really a lot of strings out there in north korea, and aren't they the ones who hold the key to changing the direction of north korea? peaceful change of north korea. >> indeed he.

the chinese again won't take any kind of initiative to destabilize the dprk. having that north korea card to play, vis-à-vis deny states over the long term, and having that buffer zone, china sees that to be in its interest. >> so you assume, you would have us assume that when we hear things like, is there going to be no more truce and we're doing come that the chinese are actually in agreement with the north koreans on that type of hostile act? the chinese are not ver very ple with a pretty very please with a pretty good with chris already to fight china, even being such a beneficiary of chinese lodges, north korea has never give in to chinese pressure. throughout the past six years or so but the chinese have reasons to be a bit disbelief towards john young. but all veterans of national interest did not go on the same trajectory for ever. they can diverge.

and if we come to a situation whereby the chinese leadership has to make a decision, wave goodbye to the dprk or to take a major risk in confronting the united states and other powers in the region i think it would prevail spent thank you. spent we now go to grace smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. thank you to our witnesses for being here today. my question is to any or each of you. former south korean president lee myung-bak made many assets of his overall approach to north korea contingent upon progress towards denuclearizing north korea. how can the new president park link north south korean corporation to progress reducing nuclear and missile threats? alternatively, what is your evaluation of kim jong owns first year in power? and d.c. any of his policy as

deviating from his father or towards any type of reform? >> i think he is on a course of much more aggressive action and his father. are to because he's in a position of relative weakness of the 28 year. is not the eldest son, and he's in a position also where his revolutionary state requires a lot of resources it has a we've heard it in economically increased trouble and they're unwilling to go to some sort conventional economic reform into his announced that is a priority. they just haven't demonstrated any serious intent to do this. so that lease in a situation with writing a nuclear tiger. which are on the tiger it's hard to get off. so i'm concerned that this next step, steps in next you are going to be more provocative than anything we've seen up to now. perhaps after that will have a diplomatic opportunity, but along the way it can get quite rough. >> in my view one common

misperception about north korean misbehavior is that the regime merely reacts to external stimuli. that the regime reacts in a negative way to sanction or u.n. security council resolutions and so forth. north korea has been i would argue strongly the far more proactive party in giving with the u.s. and south korea throughout the entire history of the cold war to this present day. north korea will strategically provoke, control limited way, occasionally launching deadly attacks against south korea and the united states, but in a controlled sensitive way because he can north korea is not suicidal. so this provocations will continue. whether we are nice to north korea or we are firm on principles, vis-à-vis pyongyang. if we are to tighten down sanctions, put more pressure on the regime, it's quite likely that north korea will react in a negative way. perhaps even launched a limited

attack on the west see or elsewhere in and around the korean peninsula. but such provocations are a part of north korea's long-term strategy. they will happen regardless of how generous we are. we have two naval skirmishes during the sunshine policy years. despite south korea's very generous engagement policy towards north korea and the mid-2000, we had a long range missile tests on july 4 into those and six and later that year north korea's first nuclear test, thus raising the states dramatically. it will continue. so to shy away from a principled approach, i don't think would be more effective than pursuing a policy of unconditional aid. >> let me just say, north korea i think we all agree is very opaque. the dynamics within the leadership is happening certainly with succession, with the younger son coming in, kim

jong-un, he had to feel under great pressure coming in but he made some very significant decisions when he came in, personnel decisions that he removed a number of so-called hardliners, person people in place in positions that were probably not expected by many others. he moved his uncle up the ladder and so forth. so those first few months into his moving in a direction but that has been reversed. and i agree with my college. i think what we're seeing now is the playbook of kim jong-il. and that's unfortunate because i think during the first three months there was some optimism. guarded optimism that maybe is moving in a direction. maybe he is looking for not a military force but he is looking for some sort of reforms and maybe going -- witnessing that now and i agree. i think with sanctions so he further actions and i think that will be disastrous for the dprk.

and he probably knows that, and i think that's been communicated to him and he needs to understand that. >> just quickly add, kim jong-un has been clamping down on border crosses but at a number of north korean defectors have made their way to the south has decreased by 100%. that is, the number of defectors, to south korea in 2012 is less than 50% of what was in 2011. so that is another indication that kim jong-un is even more progressive than his father. >> will go now to mr. desantis spent thinking mr. chairman. thank you for your test method for answer a question. i think this hearing is very important that we adopt policy to combat the illicit activity of this criminal regime. with respect to kim jong-un, and this is i'm just after hearing your responses of the panelists,

with the decisions he has made, particularly after the first few months, is the since he is actually solidified his hold on power, vis-à-vis when he first came in? and, well, to which is sort ambassador and go down the line? >> i would say yes. i think solidify, i wouldn't go that far. i would say i think he feels comparable with the decisions. he's made a number of decisions. he moved his minister of defense a few times. you change a number of ministers. he is moved people around quite a bit. i think the people around them, and i think people with the most recent visit of dennis rodman we see some of key players. a number of key players are those who have interacted with the u.s. is that messaging? it probably is a bit of messaging to the u.s. so i think he is feeling comfortable with people around him and i thin think the people around him now are more of the hardliners that one would've thought maybe eight to 10 or 12 months ago he was trying to put on the sidelines. >> i think it's a common

mispercepmispercep tion. the notion there some kind of policy or conflict between the leadership and north korean military, no doubt there are competing interest in any government by the north korean system is unique in that the near total monopoly of power by the plan, by the kim family and the party over the rest of the nation, including the military, that has been nearly perfected. and the north korean founder, the founder of north korea learned this from chairman mao of china, make sure that the party controls the military, that the party maintains power to appoint and promote generals. making key personnel decisions. and that is a pattern that north korea has adopted from china and is implement it for many years. so i don't think there is a high chance of any kind of coup d'état for a direct challenge to kim jong-un anytime soon be but over the course of 10 years, 20

years, 30 years from now i think that will only increase with time. >> i agree with the professor, but in my mind, only until kim jong-un's into your reality, is faced with our, his very survival do i think that he will consider any serious strategic deviation toward opening his system. it's basically, the system is inherently hardlined. there's no incentive early for strategic accommodation, unfortunately, and we've looked at it for years and have been doing analysis for over 20 years of our lives. and negotiated the six-party talks and that we are tried everything to really try to understand the opportunity for diplomacy, which i am a sincere believer integrating there's no solution diplomatically unless this regime feels the highest level it's in peril.

i think when they face peril because i do not believe they are suicidal. i agree with the professor but i think it will make strategic choice. one of the ways left to put them under peril is by forcing our chinese counterparts, and in other ways by directing a program of action against that reality that surrounds the newfound leader of north korea in a way that is going to have to make some hard choices. but as things stand i think his choices going to be two of the escalation. that's the initial indication at that's getting his people the bread and circus of sex of spaco overlook all the more powerful of the world spent professionally, you mentioned how the systematic oppression of the people of north korea by the regime is one of its weaknesses and maybe that's in the long-term like you just said. how can this weakness be used against the regime? is this something is any

possibility we would ever see something coming from a populist? it just seems like the regime has an iron fist over its peop people. >> today there is no doubt that north korea operates vast gulags, political pressure concentration camps that are larger in size and entire towns or cities like los angeles or houston. this, the regime tried its best to shield from the. north korea is the only country in the world that with a serious face maintains that on the human rights issues inside their country. so they are a bit sensitive. i think racing nowhere in his on north korea's extreme human rights violations and redoubling our efforts to transmit implementation into north korea is not only the right thing to do in terms of runcible, but i think it is a practical value to it. today, close to 50% of north koreans surveyed have come to

the south, say that they have come into contact with outside information, information about the outside world, listening to radio through watching south korean dvds or dvds of south korean soap opera movies, songs and so forth. so it isn't an incentive for the north korean people. the more they learn about the outside world and a relative measure will conditions, the greater desire, greater to take the risk to escape the repressive country. >> we go down to mr. deutch, ranking member of middle east subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to fall on the x. a lot of questions that my colleague from florida, mr. desantis, dr. lee, your last response. it's little wonder i think, just as on cable news shows, dennis rodman visits north korea got some attention here. was so disconcerting is that

rodman, the coverage of this visit, even on cable television, even on the so-called news shows didn't focus on anything other than the fact that he's a celebrity. there was little coverage at all during his visit of exactly what you, you and mr. desantis just brought up, and that is the fact that north korea's one of the worst human rights violators in the world. according to human rights watch, there are hundreds of thousands of north koreans, including children in prison camps, arbitrary arrests, lack of due process, torture, are pervasive. we didn't hear about is in all of the coverage of this visit. there's no independent media. there's no functioning civil society. there's no religious freedom. government policies have continued subjected the north koreans to food shortages and famine.

dr. lee, if i could ask you to follow up on your last exchange, how do we change the narrative about north korea so that the human rights situation is also at the forefront of all of our discussions? what do we do to make sure that we highlight this abysmal record as we talk about the future of north korea? and what can the u.n. do to enable more of the naming and shaming a lot of us think might be so helpful in really pursuing this agenda? dr. lee. >> the statute of the international criminal court defines crimes against humanity in this way, systematic and widespread attacks against the civilian population with knowledge of attack, with intent. what kind of attacks? you can defined in category from

things like murder, enslavement, torture and other forms of severe deprivation, physical liberty, crimes of sexual nature, persecution based on political, national, ration the, religious parents and so forth. the only crime that north korea does not fulfill perfectly is the crime of apartheid, institutionalized racial oppression but because north korea has a high degree of ethnic homogeneity. it is global news. it is newsworthy. what north korea has perpetrated over the past six years or more, but in my youth the reason that it does not give sufficient coverage in the news is because we don't see gruesome scenes of people buying and so forth. >> dr. lee, we have approximately two minutes left your let's use this opportunity to you told us, you spoke about the crimes that are being violated, and you spoke about

generally about the gulags. take the last minute and a half, describing in some detail, please, so that we can highlight these atrocities. >> the gruesome things that go on in the gulags are so gruesome, they come across as unbelievable. it is a memoir that came out last year called escape from camp 14, and it details the life of a young man who was born inside one of these camps, who was brainwashed into writing on his own family and -- ranting on his own gun and read it on his mother and his older brother who had intentions of escaping. and witness the eventual public execution of his mother and brother and felt no remorse, no kind of emotion whatsoever. ache as he was such a product of such a dehumanizing environment. these are matters that insult our basic morality that needs to

be told at greater length, reach a wider audience. and i think the media and intellectuals and governments have a basic duty to portray the north korean regime as the criminal repressive regime as it is, and to discourage people from continuing to view north korea as an oddity, a bizarre country run by a bizarre dictator. it is not an abstraction. it is a threat to humanity and we have to focus on purveying, and sending that message. >> i'm grateful for that. mr. chairman, i'm grateful for you holding this hearing. >> think you or i do want to recommend for the members and for the audience as well, the book, escape from camp 14. i've had a chance to meet with him, to interview him. and for those who question whether or not this is true, i saw the scars on his back when he was tortured, and this is a riveting account of how dehumanizing it is in a

totalitarian system to live your life because it presumes sons of your parents, sense of your parents in a situation where there is no hope. but this is one young man who did escape and they tell that story and we owe it to ourselves really to familiarize ourselves with what is happening there. my father took photographs when they liberated -- the photos taken there are eerily reminiscent, you know, of these photos that you see that come out of these camps in north korea, where family members are held as well, including young children. but we go now to mr. messer for your questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the panel, building on that line of questioning, you know, it is of course ironic that we are here this week

having this hearing and the same week that we hear about dennis rodman's trip to north korea and that on face would be a joke. something no one would care about, but it's not a joke because, frankly, it trivializes a circumstance that ought not to be at all trivial. you mentioned the human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, organized crime. and it's important that we keep the public's sentiment in america up on this important topic, to stay strong on the challenges we face with north korea. but i want to turn to another area of public sentiment. dr. lee, you mentioned that several actions you would like to see south korean leadership put forward. of course, those actions are somewhat dependent on public sentiment in south korea. and i would ask you or any others on the panel to expand

upon what the current public sentiment is in south korea towards north korea. has that changed any in recent years? >> i think the south korean perception of north korea has changed in the wake of north korea's two deadly attacks against south korea in 2010, the sinking in march and the shelling of the inhabited island, yongbyon island at the same pentagon and the south koreans have grown rich over the past couple of generations. they do not want to risk losing their wealth and their security, and do not support escalating tensions with north korea. and north korea does its best to exploit such sentiments in south korea. in my view, the south korean government should make north korean human rights a high priority. and madam president, park

geun-hye, as a candidate last year, in her foreign policy platform, statement, explicitly said that she would do her best to address the human rights situation, to reinforce we settlement programs for north korean defectors coming to south korea. finally, passed the north korean human rights act and so forth. and three days later north korea gave her a ringing endorsement that they north korea came out and harshly criticized park geun-hye for having the tenacity to mention words like defectors and human rights. again, that indicates that north korea is sensitive to its gross human rights violations. >> thank you very much. >> mr. connolly is recognize from virginia. >> thank you, madam chairman. dr. lee, you, i was struck by your testimony when you went sort of through a litany of overtures from the west, from

united states, ma from south korea, all of which in this is good if you look at subsequent north korean behavior, in terms of violence incidents, military incidence and the furtherance of the nuclear development. is the suggestion or is the inference to be drawn from that litany that we're wasting our time making overtures to the regime itself? >> north korea views itself as the party being the proverbial carrot and stick. north korea is the more iraqi part i would say, again. now, that does not mean that we should completely abandon north korea. of course, the dennis rodman affair of a few weeks from now, we will come to do that as the way that we've come to view development of north korea last july when jong-un apparently enjoyed a performance featuring disney characters and rock music

and so forth. trivial, personal preference. that's not to say that the rodman after was completely without utility. we learned that can jump in spoken english is limited. there is some intelligence value i suppose, although please feel free to -- i am setting the bar low. >> professor, i'm sorry because i'm running out of time but my question has to do with, i thought you were suggesting, and you may be right, that frankly the overtures make us feel good that they lack efficacy if you're looking for results. >> that's right. well, the other thing i was struck by, you mentioned several times in the pragmatism of the chinese, that the chinese are, at the end of the day, pragmatic and yet if one looks at the continuing support for this

pariah regime, it is hard to see pragmatism there. especially as the chinese get more and more intricately involved in market oriented investments, including here. north korea seems to be a throwback pariah state of throwback that can only over time and there is the chinese. and if that proves be a liability on the korean peninsula, not an asset, not a buffer. if it made sense in the cold war, it makes no sense, it would seem, in today's context. and, therefore, it's hard to see that as a pragmatic policy on the part of the chinese. and i wonder if you'd comment on that, and i would welcome the other two panelists to as well in a limited time we have. >> very briefly, i do believe that china will eventually come to view north korea as more a liability, but that time in my view has not come yet.

>> i totally agree. i think china is very close to the point. china has been trying to mediate, and china is realizing kim jong-un is going beyond the pale. so i think we'll see more activity on the part of china. >> i think if dr. lee is right and i think he is, china is the key here, because we're not going to change directly the north korean behavior. >> dr. asher? >> i think when to change chinese behavior to change north korea's behavior. i say that with respect. i spent a lot of time in china, i'm not anti-chinese but as a pragmatic american diplomat, i see no choice but to impose greater consequences on china implicit and cooperation in north korea's regime and its nuclear program and missile program. >> thank you. >> republicans and rand paul of kentucky held at the senate floor for more than 12 hours yesterday. as he and other senators filibustered the nomination of

john brennan to head the cia. just before yield the floor, he talked about his efforts to get answers from the administration about the legality of the drone strikes. >> mr. president, i am hopeful we are drawn attention to this issue, this issue won't fade away, that president will, that the president will tomorrow come up with a response. i would like nothing more than to facilitate the voting and the continuation of the debate tomorrow. i hope the president will respond to us. we have tried repeatedly throughout the day and we'll see what the outcome of that is. i would like to thank my staff for being here for a long day, for their help. i'd like to thank fellow senators for being supportive of this cause. i would like to thank the members of congress who came over to support this cause. the clerks, the capitol police,

the staff of the senate, the doorkeepers that apparently may have gotten in trouble. anybody else who came to support us, even the senate, even the senior senator from illinois, for better for worse, for being here to support the cause. the cause here is one that i think is important enough to have gone through this procedure. i sit at henry clay's desk, and they call henry clay the great compromise. when i came to washington from one of my fellow senators said to me, he said, oh, i guess you will be the great compromise or. and i kind of smiled at him and laughed, ma and i learned a little bit about henry clay and his career. you know, people think of some of us won't compromise. there are many compromises. the are many things i'm willing to split the difference on. if the democrats will ever come to us and say we will fix, we'll

save social security, what the page we change it to, how fast we do, there's a lot of things we can split the difference on. but the issue we've had today i think is one that we don't split the difference on. i think you don't get have the american idol think you can debate when he chooses. i don't think you acknowledge the fifth amendment due process can somehow occur behind closed doors. so while i'm a fan of henry clay i've often said on a flat of ashurst lake. caches placed weapons of choice were said to be his pen and his movie night. he was said to be so good with the first that he often had recourse to the last. he was a fierce abolitionist. he didn't suffer fools and he didn't compromise often. but what i would say is it is worth fighting for what you believe in. i think the american people can tolerate a debate, a discussion

that there's been nothing mean-spirited about this debate for 12 hours. i think in fact more of it would be even better. i wish we had more open and enjoined debate. a senior senator from illinois has brought us good points, and i think that there is much discussion but i just hope that this hasn't been slipped under the rug and that this isn't the end of this. but that this is the beginning of this. and i would go for another 12 hours to try to break strom thurmond's record but i discovered that there are some limits to filibuster and. and according to take care of one of those in a few minutes year. [laughter] but i do appreciate the senate forbearance, and i hope that if there's so many other side of the aisle have been listening and feel that they may agree on some of these issues, that if they will use their ability to impact the president's decision, and one we will say that the

senate should be trying to restrain the executive branch, republican or democrat, and two, we will use your influence to try to tell the president to do what i think really is in his heart, and that is to say absolutely where not going to be killing americans, not in a combat situation, that we will obey the constitution, that the fifth amendment does apply to all americans and the are no exception. so i thank you very much for the forbearance and i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from illinois? order. expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate. [applause] >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. senators will continue debate on the nomination of john brennan to be the next director of the cia. yesterday kentucky senator rand paul filibustered the nomination. he was on the senate floor for

about 13 hours of posting these the drone strikes on american citizens. at the conclusion of his filibustered, cloture was filed on the nomination which sets up a pole for saturday. harry reid has said he hopes to vote on the nomination today. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our fortress, we live under your protection. keep america safe from the forces of evil that come against

it. lead our senators away from the trap of trusting only in their resources so that they will never forget that nothing truly succeeds without you. you do great things, o lord. your thoughts are too deep for us to comprehend without the gift of your discernment. give your spirit's discernment to our lawmakers. show them your ways and teach them your paths. be their strength and shield this day and always. we pray in your sacred name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 7, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable brian schatz, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the is that the will resume executive session to

consider the nomination of john brennan to be director of the central intelligence agency. i ask unanimous consent that the time until 12:30 and the time from 2:00 to 3:00 be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, that i understand be recognized at 3:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. we both have caucus meetings. cloture was filed on the nomination this morning and if no agreement is reached, we are going to vote saturday morning. i hope that we can arrive at an earlier vote. we have sent directorrives to all of our senators on this side indicating that we may need a vote on saturday. mr. president, this is -- we need to do this because we have to be on the continuing resolution on monday. and we have to finish that next week because the next week is the budget, and we have to do that before the break we take

for easter. mr. president, my republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of regular order. if only we could get back to regular order, they say, and the senate would function again. yesterday we saw both sides of that. on the one hand, my colleagues did practice regular order. on the oh, they didn't. let's take the one they didn't. they demanded a 60-vote threshold for confirmation of a very qualified nominee, caitlin halligan t. the republicans once again hid behind a cloture vote, a filibuster by another term, to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on this important nomination. they took the easy way out. on the other hand, one republican senator did return to regular order and as his right he spoke for as long as he was able to speak. and, mr. president, that is a filibuster. after 12 hours standing and

talking, this is how senator paul ended his filibuster, and i quote, "i would go for another 12 hours to rye tr try to breakm thurmond's record, but i have discovered there are some limits to filibustering, and i am going to have to take care of one of those in a few moments here." i have been involved in a few filibusters, as rand paul did yesterday. and what i have learned from my experiences in talking filibusters is thissen clue to succeed, you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder. it's obvious senator paul has both p. mr. president, we should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a lot of judicial nominations. this can be a senate where ideas are debating in full public view and obstruction happens in full public view as well, or it can

be a senate where a couple senators, obstruction from behind closed doors without ever coming to the senate floor. 48 years ago today a young man by the name of john louis set out on a march across alabama, from selma to montgomery. by his side were a few hundred freedom-loving men and women calling for an end to discrimination violence against african-americans. today john lewis is a distinguished member of the united states house of representatives. back then when he was a young civil rights leader, he was determined to fight injustice, enforce the united states to live up to its founding principle that all people are created equal. mr. president, i had the good fortune to go not this year but a year or two ago down to selma and participate in this reenactment. john lewis was there, as i saw on tv a few days ago.

it was a cold day when i went there, and you saw him all bundled a few days ago, and on the day of the marks you see the tv pictures of john lewis with a long coat, had a backpack. i asked him, what was in the backpack? he said, i thought i would be arrested and put in jail. i had in that backpack an apple and a book i was reading. after being viciously beaten, john lewis doesn't know what happened to his apple, his book, or his backpack. but what a legend he has become. he wasn't arrested that day. instead, john and the peaceful protesters by his side were met a few blocks into their march by state troopers with dogs, fire hoses, and clubs and they used every one of them against these

marchers. many of the marchers, including john lewis, were viciously beaten. the terrible violence of that day known as bloody sunday was broadcast, tellly cast around the country. for the first time, the reality of the struggle for equal rights was beamed into america's living rooms. bloody sunday marked a turning point in the civil rights movement, as americans cried out against the injustice and bloodshed they saw on their tv screens. later that month, protesters finally completed that march and more than 25 patriots emerged on the steps of the capitol building. on the steps of the capitol, martin luther king jr. spoke of the power of easeful resistance. "selma, alabama, became a shining moment in the conscience of man. if the worst in america life lurked in the dark street, the

best of america rose passionat passionately from the nation to overcome it." six months later, president johnson signed votingvites act of 1965. that's where senator thurmond gave that 24-hour speech, where he took the floor for 24 hours. now, i may disagree with strom thurmond, but he had a right to talk. rand paul had a right to talk. mr. president, the supreme court last week considered striking sections of the law barring areas with a history of discrimination from changing voting practices without federal approval. that's what the voting rights act was all about. critics say those protections are no longer necessary. but anyone who waited hours to cast a ballot in 2012 knows that's not true.

a 102-year-old woman waited eight hours to vote. and anyone who has watched the state legislation-passed laws designed to intimidate eligible voters and keep the minorities and elderly from the polls knows that the fight for freedom is not over. americans made great strides to eradicate racism. thanks to legends like john lewis. but together we must guard that progress with vigilance, keeping in mind the sacrifices made by so many 48 years ago today.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the junior senator from kentucky took to the senate floor to exercise his rights as an individual senator in pursuit of an answer from the attorney general concerning the rights of u.s. citizens. the filibuster was extended, heartfelt, and important, and wish to say a few words in reaction to that effort. and, as well, on the millio nomn of john brennan to be director of the central intelligence agency. the question he raised was entirely appropriate and should have already been answered by the obama administration. first, i wish to state for the record and to correct any misinterception that yesterday's long -- misinterpretation that yesterday's long debate was a criticism of our nation's intelligence activities. the senate select committee on intelligence is responsible for oversight of our nation's oversight activities and i want to make sure that they were not

the subject of last night's debate. the members of that committee conduct that oversight in a professional, responsible manner and selflessly serve the rest of the senate in that capacity. let me assure the senate the activities of the intelligence community are closely monitored and overseen by the intelligence committee to include all counterterrorism activities. most recently the committee has conducted a serious and much-needed inquiry into the attack on the embassy in benghazi, libya and has conducted a thor reinvestigation of john owen brennan's nomination to be director of the central intelligence agency. the committee has made significant progress in reviewing mr. john brennan's record, the intelligence related to the terrorist threat in libya, and in reviewing the

administration's legal opinions concerning some overseas activities. second, in reviewing mr. brennan's nomination, senator paul has asked a series of questions of the executive branch. senator paul has a right to ask questions of the administration, and the administration has a responsibility to answer in keeping with the rules established for oversight of intelligence activities and for protecting sensitive information. the specific question, however, is not an intelligence-related question, but a straightforward legal question. does the president have the authority to order the use of lethal force against a united states citizen who is not a combatant on u.s. soil without due process of law? now, to his credit, john brennan directly answered the question motivated senator paul's filibuster.

the central intelligence agency does not conduct lethal operations inside the united states nor does it have the authority. to do so. what is befuddling is why the attorney general has not directly and clearly answered the question. the united states military no more has the right to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who is not a combatant with an armed unmanned aerial vehicle than it does with an m-16. the technology is beside the point. it simply doesn't have that right, and the administration should simply answer the question. there's no reason we cannot get this question answered today. and we should get the question answered today. frankly, it should have been answered a long time ago. last, during senator paul's filibuster, i noted that i cannot support john brennan's confirmation. during january of 2009, the president issued a series of

executive orders which, in my judgment, weakened the ability of our intelligence community's ability to find, capture, detain and interrogate terrorists. as president obama's senior advisor on counterterrorism, mr. brennan, has been a fierce defender of the administration's approach to counterterrorism as articulated by the executive orders i just referred to. he's been a loyal, dogged defender of the administration's policies, policies with which i seriously disagree. my greatest concern is that the director of central intelligence must be entirely independent of partisan politics in developing objective analysis and advice which he gives to the president. after four years of working within the white house, confronting difficult policy matters on a daily basis and having to defend the

administration's policies sometimes publicly, sometimes to the media and occasionally to the united states united states senate, i question whether mr. brennan can detach himself from those experiences. for that reason i will oppose his nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination: central intelligence agency. john owen brennan of virginia to be director. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with and i be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. thune: i come to the floor to talk about spending and its impact on economic growth. i think it's important that washington closely consider the true impact that federal spending and our soaring national debt is having on economic growth. over the past few weeks the white house, the president have been out campaigning across the country and making statements aimed at causing fear and

anxiety about the sequester. the white house adds pain to the sequester which keep in mind amounts to 2.4% of all federal spending as something that would lead to an economic disaster in this country. but the white house's attempts to cause fear and anxiety have fallen flat. what's more, many of the claims that were made were simply false. in fact, the critics agree, bill keller wrote in "the new york times" -- and i quote -- "the white house spent last week in full campaign hysteria." end quote. "the washington post" issued four pinocchios with regard to false claims made by education secretary arne duncan about the sequester's pwabgts -- impacts on teachers jobs. the national journal said the white house's tendency to exaggerate the cuts on teachers'

jobs backfired. and "politico," i quote again, for all the hype, spend and blame, exchange over the across-the-board cuts, the reality is they don't mean the sudden economic collapse of america. end quote. mr. president, it's important to be -- to see the sequester in its overall context. and all the hype associated with this could be analogous to the hype we had about the weather. everybody expected we would have the big blizzard, the big pwhreuz -- blizzard of 2013 and it never materialized. all the gloom and doom of the sequester have not amounted to much. washington does need to tighten spending, have less of the appetite than it does to take

more of the taxpayers' money and spend it on things that i think most taxpayers view to be not really necessary. when you talk about a 2.4% reduction in overall federal spending, most americans, when they evaluate their own financial situations, come to the conclusion, i think, that most of them probably could absorb if they had to that 2.4% reduction in their own spending. they would look at their budgets in very realistic ways. they would scrutinize and examine where they could find spending that's low-priority, things they could live without. what we've seen here in washington from the administration is various heads of agencies and departments going out and trying to identify the biggest, most high-profile thing for dramatic effect to try and scare, frighten the american people. but i think the american people recognize, mr. president, and hopefully the administration is coming to the conclusion as well that a 2.4% reduction in overall federal spending is something that we need to absorb here in

washington, d.c., and demonstrate to the american people that we're serious about getting washington's fiscal house in order. i maintain that the sequester is not the best way to rein in federal spending. there is a better way to do it. the reductions that are called for in the sequester disproportionately impact certain areas of the budget. we know about the impact on the national security budget which represents only 20% of federal spending but gets 50% of the cuts in the sequester. i would have preferred a different approach. but given the refusal of president obama and senate democrats to come to the table and to find alternative savings, the sequester has gone into effect. what the president and most senate democrats wanted to see happen, mr. president, was an increase in taxes, something that many of us believe would be very harmful to the economy. and if you look at what the president has already gotten in terms of tax increases, since he's been in office it amounts to about $1.7 trillion.

so if you look at just the last four years and all the promises that were made about additional spending, stimulus spending, $1 trillion in additional stimulus spending back when the president first took office, how that would impact the economy. we were told that would take unemployment down below 6%. of course we all know today what's happened. we continue to experience sluggish, slow, anemic growth, chronic high unemployment and we continue to pile massive amounts of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. while the president has been seeking to cause alarm and cast blame with regard to the sequester, one really has to question the economic arguments that he's making. the president, his allies in congress claim that he inherited a bad economy and that increased spending is necessary to stimulate economic growth. so, president obama's agenda since he's been in office has been to spend more, tax more, and regulate more.

in fact, as i mentioned earlier, over $1.7 trillion in new taxes have been imposed, he signed into law since he took office. the most recent of that, the fiscal cliff, $620 billion on january 1. but if you add up the tax increases in obamacare, another $1 trillion, over $1 trillion there. and then if you look at the $518 billion in new regulations that have been approved since the president took office, you can see that we have put an enormous amount of cost and burden opbd new requirements -- and new requirements and mandates and harm to the economy and to the small businesses that create jobs. $1.7 trillion in new taxes, $518 billion in new regulations. what has been the impact of those policies? it's pretty clear. average economic growth under this president has averaged just

.8%. .8% of the overall share of the economy g.d.p. and so less than 1% economic growth on average in the four years that this president has been in office. to put it in perspective, the president, if you look at past presidents and we had economic downturns and recessions, president reagan inherited a bad economy too. when he came to office we were faced with a series of really difficult economic circumstances. high inflation, high interest rates, weak growth. the president, president reagan put in place policies that were progrowth. he enacted progrowth tax reform. fewer regulations. and the economy grew nearly three times as fast as it has under president obama's watch. the point, very simply, mr. president, is that if you put the right policies in place, if you make it less difficult and less expensive for small businesses in our economy, for

our job creators to create jobs, you get more jobs, you get economic growth. if you make it more difficult and more expensive and harder for our small businesses and our job creators to create jobs, you get fewer jobs and less economic growth and lower take-home pay for american families and workers. if the obama recovery was as strong as reagan's, our economy would be $1.5 trillion larger today, meaning more jobs and more opportunity for americans. that's assuming if you were just getting a comparable level of growth in the economy. the fact is president obama's spending tax and regulatory policies are hamstringing economic recovery, jobs, and opportunity. in fact, just yesterday the federal reserve released the latest edition of its so-called beige book, more formally known as the summary of commentary on current economic conditions. the beige book stated that the

2010 health care law is being cited as a reason for layoffs and a slowdown in hiring. this report which examines economic conditions across various federal reserve districts throughout the country stated -- and i quote -- "employers in several districts cited the unknown effects of the affordable care act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff." end quote. mr. president, it's clear that president obama's policies are the real threat to our economy. not the sequester. 2.4% reduction, across-the-board reduction in federal spending here in washington, d.c. is something that clearly if you look at the rate of growth that we've seen in spending since the president took office, over 20% since 2009, 2.9% in the overall scheme of things is something that seems very reasonable and i think the american people see it as very reasonable. but on the contrary, if you look

at the policies the president's put in place whr-rbgs that's more stimulus spending, growing government, higher taxes, more regulations, we're getting a very, very different picture of what those policies look like in terms of the impact on our economy. we've seen negative impacts, high levels of spending, high annual deficits during the president's first term. and as a consequence of that, slower economic growth. mr. president, i want to submit, if i might, for the record an opinion piece by michael bosskin, he wrote it for the "wall street journal" earlier this week. in that piece mr. boskin makes the case that spending cuts will help the economy. he wrote the standard keynesian economic models that claim a quick economic boost from higher government spending actually show that the effect turns quickly negative. in other words, spending need to be repeated over and over, like a drug, to keep the hypothetical positive effect going.

mr. boskin tpoeupbts an abg democrat -- points to an academic study that points spending to the pre-obama spending levels would increase short-term economic growth because, because expectations of lower future taxes and debt lead to higher incomes and more private spending and investment. so, again, mr. president, just to sort of wrap things up here and put it into perspective, federal spending has increased nearly 20% since 2009. sequestration, the across-the-board spending reductions that will occur under the sequester, amount to a reduction of just 2.4% out of a $3.5 trillion budget. even with the sequester, the government will spend more this year than it did last year. so i would hope that the president would begin to be honest with the american people about what the impact of his tax

hikes, his spending and new regulations are having on our nation's economic growth and recovery. and more important than coming to the conclusion and being honest with the american people about that, change his policies. actually come to the conclusion based on what we see now are four years of his policies, which is slow growth -- .8% economic growth on average for the first four years. and as i said before, high unemployment. chronic high unemployment, still around that 8% level, and massive amounts of new debt that we're piling on the backs of future generations. not only do we need the president in terms of his rhetoric to be honest with the american people, we need him to change his policies and look at the honest relationship between spending and economic growth, which shows that the sequester will not have long-term negative impacts on the economy. we need to put the federal government on a stable fiscal path in order to create the kind of economic certainty that's needed for this country to grow the economy and create jobs.

mr. president, less spending -- less spending by washington, d.c., actually will lead to greater economic growth in our private economy. more jobs for the american people and higher take-home pay. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business, and i ask unanimous consent that i be joined in the colloquy with the senator from south carolina, senator graham. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: well, thank you, mr. president. i'd like to quote from this this morning's editorial from the "wall street journal" entitled "rand paul's drone rant." and i'd like to read for the edification of my colleagues the editorial that was in the walker this morning.

a credible media outlet. "the wall street journal" reads -- quote -- "give rand paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on washington, the filibuster filled the attention void on twitter and cable tv. if only his reasoning matched the showmanship. shortly before noon, senator paul began a talking filibuster against john brennan's nomination to leaded c.i.a. the tactic is rarely used in the senate and was last seen in 2010. but senator paul said an alarm had to be set about did, he promised to speak billion the president says "no," he will not kill you at did a i cafe. meant by a military drone. he was apparently serious,

though his argument isn't. senator paul had written the white house to inquiry about the possibility of a drone strike against a u.s. citizen on american soil. attorney general eric holder replied that the u.s. hasn't -- has no intention to bomb any specific territory. drones are limited to the remotest area of conflict zones like pakistan and yes yemen, bus a hypothetical constitutional matter, mr. holder acknowledged the president can authorize the use of lethal military force within u.s. territory. this shocked senator paul, who invoked the constitution and miranda rights. under current u.s. policy, mr. paul mused on the floor jane fonda could have been legally killed by a hellfire missile during her tour of communist

hanoi in 1972. a group of noncombatants sitting in public view in houston may soon be pulverized, he declared. calm down, senator. mr. holder is right. even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. i repeat that, the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. what the it can do under the laws of war is target an a enemy combatant anywhere at any time including on u.s. soil. this includes a u.s. senate -- citizen who is also an enemy combatant. the president can designate such combatant if he belongs to an entity, a government, say, or a

terrorist network like al qaeda you that has taken up arms against the united states as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. that does not include hanoi jane. such a conflict exists between the u.s. and al qaeda. so mr. holder is right that the u.s. could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen an with a al alwaki had he continued to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlakist was no different than the nazis who came ashore on long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their

college dorms. he needs to know what he's talking about." well, mr. president, i watched some of that -- quote -- "deba "debate" -- unquote -- yesterday. i saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that, as odious as it was, ms. fonda acted within her constitutional rights. and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy and even may demonstrate against it is somehow a member

of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. it is simply false. now, mr. president, i believe that we need to visit this whole issue of the use of drones, who uses them, whether the c.i.a. should become their own air force, what the oversight is, what -- the legal and political foundations for this kind of conflict needs to be reviewed, and it -- the foundation rests mostly on laws designed for another task that government lawyers have interpreted without public scrutiny to meet new challenges outside the surveillance context. congress as a body has not debated or approved the means on the other hands of secret warfare because secret surveillance and targeted strikes rather than u.s.

military detentioning are central to the new warfare. we need -- there are no viable plaintiffs to test the governmengovernment in court. the executive branch decisions since 2001 have led the u.s. to new enemies hon a new battlefield without enough focused national debate, deliberate congressional approval or real judiciary review. and i would probably need a new framework akin to the national security act of 1947 or the series of intelligence reforms made after watergate or even the 2001 authorization of force. to define the scope of the new war, the authorities and limitations on presidential power, and forms of review of the president's actions. i'm quoting from an article by jack goldsmith that was in "the washington post" on february 5,

2013. the u.s. needs a rule book for secret warfare. but i don't think we should have any doubt that there are people, both within the united states of america and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9/11. all of us thank god there's not been a repeat of 9/11. most of the experts i know will say that there's been a certain element of luck, but a small element, but still an element of luck such as the underwear bomber and others who have prevented a devastating attack on the united states. but to somehow -- to somehow allege or infer that the president of the united states is going to kill somebody like jane fonda or somebody who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous. ridiculous.

so, i don't disagree that we need more debate, more discussion, and frankly probably more legislation to make sure that america does protect the rights of all of our citizens, to make sure at the same time that if someone is an enemy combatant, that -- that that enemy combatant has nowhere to hide. not in a cafe, not anywhere. but to say that somehow that even though we would try to take that person -- to say that we would hit them in a cafe with a hellfire missile, first of all, there are no drones with hell -h hellfire missiles anywhere near. they're in afghanistan and yemen and other places in the world. so we've done, a i think disservice to a the love

americans by making them think that somehow they're in danger from their government. they're not. but we are in danger -- we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replaceable leadership enemy that is hellbent on our destruction. and this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven't had to do in other more conventional wars. and i don't believe that anwar al-awlaki should have been protected anywhere in the world. but that doesn't mean that they're is going to take him out with a hellfire missile. it means that we're going to use our best intelligence to apprehend and to debrief these people so that we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. so, mr. president, all i can say

is that i don't think that what happened yesterday was helpful to the american people. we need a discussion, as i said, about exactly how we are going to address this new form of almost terminable warfare, which is very different from anything that we ever faced in the past. but somehow to allege that the united states of america, our government, would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda, that -- that -- that is -- that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u.s. policy to the realm of the ridiculous. i'd also like to add an additional note, mr. president. about 42%, as i'm told, of the members of this senate are here for six years or less. every time a majority party is in power, they become frustrated

with the exercise of the minority of their rights here in the senate. and back some years ago there was going to be -- we were going to eliminate, when rings republ, this side was in the majority, we're going to eliminate the ability to call for 60 votes for confirmation of udges j. we were able to put a side of the there was another effort just at the beginning of this senate to do away with 60 votes and back down to 51, which in my view would have destroyed the senate. a lot of us work -- a group of us worked very hard for a long time to come up with some compromises that would allow the senate to move more rapidly but at the same time -- and efficiently, but at the same time preserve a 60-vote majority requirement on some pieces of legislation. what we saw yesterday -- what we

saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the senate are being abused. i hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take that in information. i'd note the presence of the senator from south carolina. the senator from south carolina, as many of our colleagues know, is a lawyer. he has been a military lawyer in the air force reserve for over 20 years. if there is anyone in the united states senate that knows about this issue from a legal, technical standpoint, i would ask -- it is my colleague from south carolina. i would ask my colleague from south carolina, is there any way that the president of the united states could just randomly attack with a drone or a hellfire missile someone, without that person being designated an enemy combatant? and i don't think, as much as i hate to say it, that that

applies to jane fonda. mr. graham: well, thank you. that was a very good question. this has been a very lively debate. senator paul has a lot of passion. that's a great thing. this is an important issue. we should be talking about it. i welcome a reasoned discussion. but to my republican colleagues, i don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. you? -- you know, i don't evenremembf president bush on the other side. they had a drone program back then. all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every republican so spun up. what are we up to here? i think president obama has -- in many ways he has been a very failed president. i think his executive orders overstep. i think he has intruded into the congressional arena by executive

order. there is a failed presidency. but there's also some agreement. people are astonished that president obama, senator mccain, is doing many of the things that president bush did. i'm not astonished. i congratulate him for having the good judgment to understand we're at war. and to my party, i'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war. not senator paul. he's a man to himself. he has a view that i don't think is a republican view. i think it's a legitimately held libertarian view. you've got to remember senator paul was the one senator who voted against a resolution that said the policy of the united states will not be to contain a nuclear-capable iran. it was 90-1. to his credit, he felt like that would be provocative and it may lead to a military conflict. he'd rather have a

nuclear-capable iran than use military force. and he said so, to his credit. 90 of us thought we would like not to have a military conflict with iran, but we're not going to contain a nuclear-capable iran, senator mccain, because it's impossible. what would happen is if iran got a nuclear weapon, the sunni arab states would want a nuclear weapon, and most of us believe they would share the technology with the terrorists that would wind up attacking israel anded united states. it's not so much i fear a missile coming from iran. i fear if they got a nuclear weapon or nuclear technology they would give it to some terrorist organization like they gave i.e.d.'s to shia militia in iraq. and they would wreak havoc on the world. we don't believe in containing, letting them having it and trying to contain it because we think their soerbs with terrorism -- their association

with terrorism is too long and too deep. but senator paul, to his credit, was okay with that. i just disagree with him. as to what he's saying about the drone program, he has come our way some -- and i want to appreciate that. before he had some doubt in his mind as to whether or not we should have killed anwar al-alwaki in yemen, an american citizen who had collaborated with al qaeda, who radicalized major has san, involved in planning terrorist attacks against u.s. forces throughout the region. president obama was informed through the military intelligence community channels of al-alwaki's existence, all the videos he made supporting jihad and killing americans, and he, as commander in chief designated this person as enemy combatant. mr. president, you did what you had the authority to do, and i congratulate you for making that informed decision and the process to get on this target

list is very rigorous. i think sometimes almost too rigorous. but now apparently senator paul says it's okay to kill him because we have a photo of him with an r.p.g. on his shoulder. he's moved the ball. he's saying now that he wants this president to tell him that he will not use a drone to kill an american citizen sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee who is not a combatant. i find the question offensive. as much as i disagree with president obama, as much as i support past presidents, i do not believe that question deserves an answer, because as senator mccain said, this president is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe anywhere in the united states, nor will

future presidents, because if they do, they will have committed an act of murder. noncombatants under the law of war are protected, not subject to being killed randomly. so to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody in this room having a cup of coffee, to me, cheapens the debate and is something not worthy of -- mr. mccain: could i ask my colleague a question, especially on that subject? a lot of our friends, particularly senator paul and others, pride themselves on their strict adherence to the constitution and the decisions of the supreme court. isn't it true that as a result of an attack on long island during world war ii that an

american citizen, among others, was captured and hung on american soil? and the united states supreme court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant? is that established without a doubt? the fact that these are enemy combatants, and no matter where they are, they are subject to the -- to the form of justice as the terrorist in world war ii was? mr. graham: it's been a long-held concept in american jurisprudence that when an american citizen sides with the enemies of our nation, they can be held, captured and treated as an enemy combatant. they have committed an act of war against our country, not a common crime. so in world war ii, you had german saboteurs land in long island. they had been planning and

training in germany to blow up a lot of infrastructure, and some of it i think was in chicago. so they had this fairly elaborate bran to attack us. they -- elaborate plan to attack us. they landed in long island. the plan was to have american citizens sympathetic to the nazi cause -- german origin, most of them -- to meet them and provide them shelter and comfort. well, the f.b.i. back then broke that plot up, and they were arrested. the american citizens were tried by military commission, and they were found guilty, and a couple of them were executed. now there's been a case in the war on terror where an american citizen was captured in afghanistan. our supreme court reaffirmed the proposition that we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant when they align themselves with the forces against this country. this congress, right after the september 11 attacks, designated

authorization to use military force against al qaeda and affiliated groups. so the congress has given every president since 9/11 the authority to use military force against al qaeda and affiliated groups, and american citizens like anwar al-alwaki, the guy hamdi that was captured in afghanistan has been treated as enemy combatants. if president obama does that, he's doing nothing new or novel. what would be novel is for us to say is that if a terrorist cell came to the united states, an al qaeda cell, was operating in the united states, that's a common law and the law of war doesn't apply. it would be the most reverse situation in the world for the congress to say that the united states itself is a terrorist safe haven when it comes to legal rights, that we can blow you up with a drone overseas, we can capture you in afghanistan, put you -- hold you under the law of war. but if there is a terrorist cell operating in the united states,

somehow you're a common criminal. we read you your miranda rights. and i just had this one thing to get senator mccain's thought, i hope you realize that hypothetically there are patriot missile batteries all over washington that could interdict an airplane coming to attack this capitol or the white house or other vital government facilities. i hope you understand senator mccain that there are f-15's and f-16's on three- to five-minute alert all up and down the east coast. and if there is a vessel coming in to the united states where a plane's been hijacked or a ship's been hijacked, loaded with munitions or the threat is real that they've taken over a craft and are about to attack us, i hope all of us would agree using military force in that situation is not only lawful under the authorization to use

military force, it's within the inherent authority of the commander in chief to protect us all. mr. mccain: and should not be construed as an authority to kill somebody in a cafe. mr. graham: it should be construed as a reasonable ability to defend the homeland against a real threat. and the question is: do you feel threatened anymore? i do. i think al qaeda is alive and well. and to all those who have been fighting this war for a very long time, multiple tours in iraq and afghanistan, you tried to keep the war over there so it doesn't come here. to the failed plots that have been broken up by the c.i.a. and the f.b.i., god bless you. we've got to be right every time. they only have to be right once. and if you think the homeland is not in the desire of al qaeda, it is absolutely on the top of their list, and they're recruiting american citizens to their cause. and unfortunately, a few will probably go over to their side.

thank god it will be just a few. but to take this debate into the absurd is what i object to. we can have reasonable disagreements about the regulatory nature of a drone program should be under the department of defense. what kind of oversight congress should have. i think that's a really good discussion, and i'd like to work with senator durbin and others to craft some -- the detainee treatment act is where congress got involved with the executive branch to come up with a way to better handle the detainee issue. but the one thing i've been consistent about is i believe there's one commander in chief, not 535. and i believe this commander in chief and all future commander in chiefs are unique in our constitution and have an indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland. and if we have 535 commanders in chief, then we're going to be less safe. and if you turn over military decisions to courts, then you've done, i think, the ultimate harm

to our nation. you've criminalized the war, and i don't think our judiciary wants that. so as much as i disagree with president obama, i think you have been responsible in the use of the drone program overseas. i think you have been thorough in your analysis. i'd like to make it more transparent. i'd like to have more oversight. as to the accusation being leveled against you that if you don't somehow answer this question, we're to assume you're going to use a drone, or your administration or future administrations would to kill somebody who is a noncombatant, no intelligence to suggest, they're an enemy combatant sitting at a cafe by a hellfire missile -- i had one thought. if there is an al qaeda operative u.s. citizen who is helping the al qaeda cause in a cafe in the united states, we don't want to blow up the cafe. we want to go in there and grab

the person for intelligence purposes. the reason we're using drones in afghanistan and pakistan, we don't have any military presence along the tribal border. the reason we're having to use drones is we can't capture people. the preference is to capture them, not to kill them. but there are certain areas where they operate that the only way we can get to them is through a drone strike. and i would say this -- mr. mccain: could i just say to my friend, there is scenarios where there could be an extreme situation where there is a direct threat. we could draw many scenarios. a bomb-laden, explosive-laden vehicle headed for the nuclear power plant where the president of the united states may have to use any asset that the president has in order to prevent an impending catastrophic attack on the united states of america. and that is not without -- that is within the realm of possible scenarios. so to somehow say that we would

kill people in cafes and, therefore, drone strikes should never be used under any circumstances, i believe is a distortion of the realities of the threats we face. as we are speaking, there are people who are plotting to attack the united states of america. we know that. and at the same time we are ready, as you said, to discuss, debate, and frame legislation which brings us up to date with a new kind of war that we are in. but to somehow have a debate and a discussion that we would have killed jane fonda does, in my view, a disservice to the debate that needs to be -- and discussion that needs to be conducted. mr. graham: that's a very good point. i look forward to a discussion about how to deal with a drone program. it's just a tactical weapon. it is an air platform without a pilot.

now, if there is a truck going toward a military base or nuclear power plant, we've got a lot of assets to interdict that truck. maybe you don't need the f-16. but i guarantee you if there is a hijacked aircraft coming to the capitol, that the president of the united states would be well in his rights to order the patriot missile battery to shoot that plane down or to have an f-16 shoot it down. and we're ready for that, by the way. and i would just suggest one thing. the number of americans killed in the united states by drones is zero. the number of americans killed in the united states by al qaeda is 2,958. the reason it's not 2 million, 20 million or 200 million is because they can't get the weapons to kill that many of us. the only reason it's 2,958 is because their weapons